She was a wall employee who was climbing when no students were there climbing. The autobelay was retracting normally on the way up, but when she jumped off at the top to lower down, it lowered without resistance. She fell from the top ( ~30 feet ) and was badly injured. A passing police officer heard her yelling for help from outside, and came in to help.

She was a wall employee who was climbing when no students were there climbing. The autobelay was retracting normally on the way up, but when she jumped off at the top to lower down, it lowered without resistance. She fell from the top ( ~30 feet ) and was badly injured. A passing police officer heard her yelling for help from outside, and came in to help.

Wow that is an awful story to hear. I am glad she survived it. I hope she recovers quickly. I hope they can determine what exactly happened.

While I don't wish to speak ill of the injured, I feel that accidents need to be discussed in order to prevent them in the future. Everyone I've tried to talk to doesn't have much idea of what exactly happened. She was there alone, and fell. We only have her explanation, which is likely not particularly clear considering the accident.

Without going into details (google the patent if you want them), the device has three independent braking mechanisms that engage based on the centripedal force from the webbing feeding out. As long as its taking rope in as you climb, failure of the device should only cause it to break harder. Unless there is an impending (and incredibly late recall at this point), any properly maintained and operated trublue should be perfectly safe. The important question is what errors were made that caused the accident so that we can all learn from them.

To y'all who have a natural fear of newfangled devices such as the trublue, I'll refer you to an interview I saw on The Colbert Report the other day where we learn how science and reality are determined by personal feelings. (http://www.hulu.com/watch/353531/the-colbert-report-don-mcleroy)

The trublue seems pretty similar to the other autobelays which were recalled and discountinued a couple of years ago after similar accidents. Based on the intro video on trublue's site it looks really sketchy so I'm not at all surprised if it turns out it really did fail catastrophically.

The gym I frequent has some kind of hydraulic autobelays which feel very solid (in fact almost too solid since they pull on you contantly, not with a delay like the trublu).

I used one a few times on one of my first climbing experiences and it simply didn't seem right. I'd prefer a human on the line rather than some mechanical device that may or may not be maintained properly.

Plus the tension on those things is often so high that it's easy to whip yourself in the face with one trying to clip in.

While I don't wish to speak ill of the injured, I feel that accidents need to be discussed in order to prevent them in the future. Everyone I've tried to talk to doesn't have much idea of what exactly happened. She was there alone, and fell. We only have her explanation, which is likely not particularly clear considering the accident.

Without going into details (google the patent if you want them), the device has three independent braking mechanisms that engage based on the centripedal force from the webbing feeding out. As long as its taking rope in as you climb, failure of the device should only cause it to break harder. Unless there is an impending (and incredibly late recall at this point), any properly maintained and operated trublue should be perfectly safe. The important question is what errors were made that caused the accident so that we can all learn from them.

To y'all who have a natural fear of newfangled devices such as the trublue, I'll refer you to an interview I saw on The Colbert Report the other day where we learn how science and reality are determined by personal feelings. (http://www.hulu.com/watch/353531/the-colbert-report-don-mcleroy)

B

Properly maintained and operated is key. Also these devices don't brake well if the line is impeded, i.e. if it running over features and holds, or if you have traversed too far to one side. These conditions should still not result in a plummet to the ground, but would still result in a much harder fall than expected (which doesn't sound like the case here).

Also, it should be easy to determine if she was properly clipped in or not (as long as her memory and the memory of the responder is accurate). If she was still clipped in and on the ground, then it is clear that the device failed. If the line is not attached to her when she is on the ground, then either she was never properly attached to it or someone removed it from her after the fall.

The trublue seems pretty similar to the other autobelays which were recalled and discountinued a couple of years ago after similar accidents. Based on the intro video on trublue's site it looks really sketchy so I'm not at all surprised if it turns out it really did fail catastrophically.

The gym I frequent has some kind of hydraulic autobelays which feel very solid (in fact almost too solid since they pull on you contantly, not with a delay like the trublu).

The trublue works by a completely different mechanism from the recalled ones. The recalled ones used friction to dissipate falling energy, the trublue uses magnetic braking (e.g. eddy current induction) to dissipate falling energy.

I worked at a commercial gym when the trublues came out, and while I didn't like the descent rate, they were very reliable. However (and this was a complaint the management had), they have to be sent in every year for maintenance, which isn't cheap. If there was a maintenance issue, I'd bet it was that the annual refit wasn't performed. Beyond that, the only maintenance to be performed is to vacuum out the nozzle.

... it simply didn't seem right. I'd prefer a human on the line rather than some mechanical device that may or may not be maintained properly....

A human has many more possible modes of failure (distraction, fatigue, hangover, etc.) than a machine, yet we feel safer trusting a human than a machine.

We place great trust in machines to transport us to a climb (did you really think about the brakes in your car when you were driving, or did you not even think about them and just blindly trust that they would work?), yet we have trouble trusting a much simpler machine to belay us once we're there.

Is there anymore information on what happened here. If the auto belay failed for any reason I have to imagine that it will affect the use of auto belays in gyms.

I thought they redesigned these so that they would always arrest the fall even if the primary mechanisms failed?

As near as I can tell, there has not been any more information released other than second hand rumors. We may never be made aware of the results of any investigation. It was also my impression that the TruBlue autobelay was supposed to lock up in the event of a mechanism failure. But I have to take the manufacturers word on that as I really don't know how the thing works.

... it simply didn't seem right. I'd prefer a human on the line rather than some mechanical device that may or may not be maintained properly....

A human has many more possible modes of failure (distraction, fatigue, hangover, etc.) than a machine, yet we feel safer trusting a human than a machine.

We place great trust in machines to transport us to a climb (did you really think about the brakes in your car when you were driving, or did you not even think about them and just blindly trust that they would work?), yet we have trouble trusting a much simpler machine to belay us once we're there.

I'm the same, I prefer a human, but I know I'm not safe either way.

it's a straw man argument. I wouldn't trust that the human maintained the machine. I can't talk to the machine, it can't talk to me, and neither of us can verify that the machine is, in fact, working, whereas I can be sure my human partner is working based on a simple conversation and smelling his breath.

No, it was not a straw man tactic. For that to be true I would have had to make a misrepresentation, and use that distortion to promote my view.

All I did was point out a bit of irony in the fact that (in general) we will blindly trust very complicated machines to transport us to a climb, yet not trust a simple machine for a belay once we are there.

In reply to:

... I can be sure my human partner is working based on a simple conversation and smelling his breath.

I know what you mean, but in reality you cannot be sure your belayer will catch you. Even a sober and experienced belayer is still very fallible, all it takes is something as simple as fatigue or distraction to lead to complete failure. It's a risk we accept, and one we try to minimize, yet the risk is always there.

No, it was not a straw man tactic. For that to be true I would have had to make a misrepresentation, and use that distortion to promote my view.

It's misrepresented because the belay machine requires fairly routine maintenance done by a human being. In other words, the machine itself doesn't remove the human element.

And the idea of comparing a car to a belay machine is kind of silly, though I get the irony. A car requires quite a bit less maintenance before something serious happens (e.g. - change my oil every 5000 miles? pffttt...I bet I can get away with 10k before my engine seizes up. It might cost me more money in the long run to do it that way, but it won't cost me a broken arm, leg, or, potentially death). The two are not on the same level, but I get what you're saying.

In reply to:

All I did was point out a bit of irony in the fact that (in general) we will blindly trust very complicated machines to transport us to a climb, yet not trust a simple machine for a belay once we are there.

In reply to:

... I can be sure my human partner is working based on a simple conversation and smelling his breath.

I know what you mean, but in reality you cannot be sure your belayer will catch you. Even a sober and experienced belayer is still very fallible, all it takes is something as simple as fatigue or distraction to lead to complete failure. It's a risk we accept, and one we try to minimize, yet the risk is always there.

I'm a lot more sure a human would catch me than I would a human would fix the machine. This is because I can test the human fairly competently in the moment before climbing. I can't make the same assumptions that the machine was maintained correctly when I wasn't around.